View Full Version : How's the UN climategate "INVESTIGATION" going?
It is amazing how easily an overwhelming consensus can be formed when threats of violence by armed personnel is used to bring it about.
What is further disgusting in this day and age is the number of people who will dismiss such exhibitions of the thugocracy at work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.
During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.
However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.
The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.
“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”
“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”
Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.
McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.
“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”
“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”
Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used.
McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.
His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.</div></div>
12-13-2009, 07:03 PM
Silencing someone iznt good.
However, i can see how the prof can be sick of the deny'ologists and their silly questions.
I will be keen to see the outcome of the UEA investigation into climategate.
12-13-2009, 07:50 PM
I think that the funding that flows into the GW research, most of it coming for the taxpayer, is what corrupted the story to begin with and will just as likely corrupt the UEA investigation. There have been billions upon billions supporting this story and the need for that funding to continue will probably result in the same 'sky is falling' mantra.
I think that this is the biggest hoax in history and it will be interesting to watch to see if 'truth' will succumb to political correctness and become irrelevant. It does seem that ideology of the Left requires that the end is more important than the 'truth'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Silencing someone iznt good.
However, i can see how the prof can be sick of the deny'ologists and their silly questions.</div></div>
The program has been to stifle debate, silence critics, hide research methods, and avoid scientific debate for at least the last decade.
When has the AGW crowd EVER conducted open talks on the subject?
12-14-2009, 02:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really? The program has been to stifle debate, silence critics, hide research methods, and avoid scientific debate for at least the last decade. When has the AGW crowd EVER conducted open talks on the subject? LWW</div></div>ElDubb -- Real science duznt work like that.
Real science duznt hav a crowd of anything -- real science duznt debate anything.
Real science writes things down -- and themz written things get reviewed by peers in the first instance -- and, if surviving the initial reviews, might get published -- at which point there iz a second lot of reviews, which are published -- the process can be quite savage.
The deny'ologists are not climate'ologists -- and in any case hav never published anything that haz had peer'review, ie properly published in the same magazine -- but they are a good source of arse'wipe (a bit glossy but).
Mind u, Einstein never had any peer reviews of any sort for any of hiz published papers neither.
12-14-2009, 03:53 PM
Real is not the subject of discussion. What is being talked about is propaganda disguised as real science. And there are plenty of experts ie, real scientists, on the denyin' side of the issue.
12-14-2009, 04:24 PM
Science iz certainly full of propaganda and bastards -- and science iz wrong most of the time -- and partly wrong all of the time.
Science needs fellas asking difficult questions -- denyers hav made some good contributions in that direction -- forcing new research into things that would otherwize hav been left nonknown.
But there aint many proper scientists (climate'ologists) among the deny'ologists -- deny'ologists are unfortunately mainly geologists and meteorologists and economists etc -- pity, all science needz good questions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The deny'ologists are not climate'ologists --
Some of them actually are ... but then the head of the IPCC isn't a climatologist either. He's an economist ... but the issue isn't about wealth distribution.
Sir ... please step away from the Kool Ade.
12-15-2009, 03:16 PM
ElDubb -- I am thinking that there aint even one climateOlogist in with the denyOlogists at present.
But the guy doing the investigation into climateGate for UEA aint a climateOlogist -- which iz fairNuff.
We will see what he kumz up with.
But denyOlogy iz so full of arseWipe that it iz difficult to devote enuff time to answer. For example just one little snippet from the initial post quote above........
".......He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming......"
Just off the top of my head, when i read this shit the following thorts kum to mind.
(1) I hav never heard that Jones aktually deleted any data anywhere -- McAleer knows more than me here.
(2) Jones only mentioned hiz intention to delete data from Jones' computer, not necessaryly the main computer -- probably koz of FOI implikations.
(3) How can u delete data that contradicts GW????? -- do u delete the cold days?????? -- perhaps u delete the cold years -- no, wait, i know, u err, u errrr, u errrrrrr -- no, i dunno how u would do it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ElDubb -- I am thinking that there aint even one climateOlogist in with the denyOlogists at present.</div></div>
I believe that you believe that ... but you are wrong.
In fact, many IPCC scientists have resigned over the years claiming that this kind of fraud has been going on.
12-16-2009, 08:41 PM
ElDubb -- I had a quick look -- i could only find 1.5 resignations.
Chris Landsea resigned (from the author panel) in 2005 (befor doing any authoring) koz he sayd that public (but non'IPCC) statements by Dr Trenberth blaming the bad 2004 Atlantic hurricanes on GW were not factual.
Dr Paul Reiter resigned from the IPCC review panel, koz he woz not happy with the conclusions of adopted IPCC reports that he had reviewed.
I dont think there are any others.
Anyhow -- my following statement still stands.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ElDubb -- I am thinking that there aint even one climateOlogist in with the denyOlogists at present.
12-16-2009, 08:49 PM
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC)
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely, Chris Landsea 17 January 2005
12-16-2009, 08:52 PM
From: "James J. McCarthy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dave Rado" <email@example.com>
Sent: 18 May 2007 03:42
Subject: Reiter and IPCC - very curious
Page 1 of 1 18/05/2007
I spoke with both Richard Moss (WG II, Head of Technical Support Unit Second and beginning of Third Assessments) and Neil Leary (WG II, Head of Technical Support Unit Third Assessment). With both phone and email messages I have attempted to reach (unsuccessful so far) Jonathan Patz (author of papers that have taken a different position from Reiter's papers on incidence of highland malaria, and author on WG II human health chapters). Richard and Neil are confident that nothing like what Reiter describes with regard to having "resigned", asking that his name be removed from the chapter author list, or threatening legal action ever happened on their watches at WG II. Moreover, Reiter's remark "this happened a great deal...specialists...don't agree and resign...there have been a number that I know of..." is completely without basis in fact. Neither Richard, Neil, nor I can recall a single instance in our experiences with SAR and TAR WG II of even one author having "resigned" or having asked that his name be removed from the author list. I have to read a chapter of our upcoming Northeast States Climate Impact Assessment (just arrived) yet this evening, so I probably won't be able to get to the text I promised until the flight on Saturday.
12-16-2009, 08:56 PM
To: "Dave Rado" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 22 May 2007 08:01
Regarding Reiter being marginalized in AR4, or having resigned from it, this is not correct. His name was nominated as a possible authors of the IPCC 4th Assessment by the U.S., as a lead author (but not as a Convening Lead Author) for the Health Chapter. The IPCC selected as a lead author of that chapter a US expert who had been nominated by the US as a Convening Lead Author, that is, someone whom the US had itself ranked above Reiter in its nomination list for this chapter. This selection was made after studying the vitae of all nominated scientists. Since authors are selected from across the world it is rare that more than one is selected from the same country. This explains why Dr Reiter was not selected: it is simply that there are others that were thought to be more qualified than him. As he was not selected, it would have been impossible for him to resign. Furthermore all nominated scientists (including those not selected as authors) are invited to be reviewers of the IPCC assessment. As such, Dr Reiter was invited to be an IPCC reviewer, and we did in fact get review comments from Paul. He will therefore be named as a reviewer in the report, and his comments were taken into account in the chapters. Dr Reiter has commented as an expert to our assessment, both on the First and second order draft. His comments were taken into account as well as all the other thousands of comments received and carefully weighted against the evidence in available studies. The evidence available on climate change and malaria has been very carefully evaluated in the 4AR, in comparison to TAR, as more literature was available to better understand the relationship. Ultimately the recommendations of SAR and TAR have created the generation of interesting research results over the last few years and also contributed to new research on using climate information tools for disease anticipation in some African countries. Ultimately this research has contributed in increasing public health responses to the threat of this deadly disease. So: It is not correct that Dr Reiter was 'marginalized, either in terms of selection procedure or subsequently; and I have not received any request from him to have his named removed from the list of reviewers of the Fourth Assessment. Sincerely, Martin Parry
Dr Martin Parry, Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Hadley Centre, UK Meteorological Office, Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
office Tel: + 44 (0) 1392 886695 Fax: +44 (0) 1392 885681 direct e-mail: email@example.com e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: firstname.lastname@example.org 22
12-16-2009, 09:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ElDubb -- I am thinking that there aint even one climateOlogist in with the denyOlogists at present.</div></div>I believe that you believe that ... but you are wrong. In fact, many IPCC scientists have resigned over the years claiming that this kind of fraud has been going on. LWW </div></div>I wouldnt inklood Dr Landsea among Deny'ologists. Dr Landsea appears to be an anti'deny'ologist i think.
But, in 2005, he woz unhappy that GW woz being blamed for 2004 Atlantic hurricane activity.
Dr Landsea considered that (a) there iz no good statistical evidence that hurricane activity woz worse and (b) that GW would hav only a weak effekt (according to current models).
12-16-2009, 09:27 PM
Likewize i wouldnt inklood Prof Reiter among Deny'ologists.
Reiter merely questioned stats re the spread of malaria, and he questioned the blaming of GW.
Criticism of the IPCC
Reiter says he was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he "found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality". After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report
"After much effort and many fruitless discussions, I decided to concentrate on the USGCCRP and resigned from the IPCC project. My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong insistence that I succeeded in having it removed."
Reiter is sceptical about the IPCC process, as seen in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:
"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse." 
Paul Reiter presented Malaria in the debate on climate change and mosquito-borne disease on April 25, 2006. The four primary points of his presentation here were:
Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease
The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.
It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to “predict” future prevalence.
Environmental activists use the ‘big talk’ of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as ‘sceptics’.
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" .
In The Great Global Warming Swindle, Reiter says "this claim that the IPCC is the world's top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and its simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists."
12-17-2009, 06:54 AM
Rush Limbaugh, a noted climatologist, says that the whole global warming scare is a total hoax that has been perpetrated by a bunch of power hungry politicians who are using taxpayer funds to buy support from the leftists in academia. As we all know, the lefties in academia can easily be bought off because they agree that political power belongs with the state so they don't mind adjusting the numbers to achieve that end. What more proof does anyone need?
12-17-2009, 03:29 PM
llotter -- Me, myself, i am not scared one iota for ugly humanity -- but i am very scared for the beautyfull flora and fauna of this very special planet.
Show me the day to day data from the Precambrian forward that conclusively proves that the earth climatic conditions have never changed rapidly over a short term period.
2 centuries of data and some of it very much in question does not provide any conclusive evidence when you consider the extent time that the planet has existed.
If you can not produce that data then you are only arguing on conjecture.
12-19-2009, 04:12 AM
Sev -- The climate haz allwayz changed rapidly -- and it haz never changed rapidly -- ie it depends on what rapidly meenz.
Ahhh. A Clinton fan.
Cigar? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.